A conference organized by the Geneva Geostrategic Observatory, in collaboration with the Canadian Francophone Circle of Geostrategic Analysis, highlights the geopolitical implications of a potential second Trump term. Featuring Sébastien Boussois, Major-General (Ret.) Gaston Côté, and Colonel (Ret.) Jacques O’Keefe.
The potential reelection of Donald Trump represents a major strategic turning point. Beyond the media frenzy, several weak signals delineate the contours of a structured ideological and operational agenda, rooted in a deliberate break with the foundations of the post-1945 international order.
It was with this perspective in mind that the conference “How Far Can Donald Trump Go?” was organized at the initiative of the Geneva Geostrategic Observatory, in partnership with the Canadian Francophone Circle of Geostrategic Analysis. Moderated by journalist Alain Jourdan, the panel brought together political scientist Sébastien Boussois, retired General Gaston Côté, and retired Colonel Jacques O’Keefe, both former officers in the Canadian Armed Forces. The result was a rigorous, transatlantic, and interdisciplinary analysis.
At the heart of the discussions, Project 2025—an 800-plus-page document published by the Heritage Foundation—emerges as the doctrinal cornerstone of a prospective new Trump administration. Far from a mere electoral platform, it is a blueprint for the wholesale restructuring of the state apparatus, pursuing multifaceted objectives: centralizing executive power by neutralizing bureaucratic counterweights, replacing career senior civil servants with loyal political appointees, reorienting public policy toward an unapologetically conservative agenda, rearming the American economy through an offensive protectionist strategy, and breaking with multilateralism in favor of utilitarian bilateral diplomacy.
According to Colonel O’Keefe, this project is “not merely conceptualized, but already being implemented through clear economic, monetary, and diplomatic signals.” He specifically points to a strategy of targeted devaluation of the U.S. dollar to boost exports—a bold yet plausible hypothesis in light of historical precedents such as the 1985 Plaza Accord. This monetary approach is coupled with a vision of international trade centered on forced reciprocity, in which customs tariffs serve as a strategic lever as much as a political one.
The conference emphasized that Donald Trump embodies a form of radical realism, in which international cooperation is perceived as a burden rather than an asset. In Geneva, UN agencies are already feeling the effects of this stance: drastic funding cuts, paralyzed institutional reforms, and an atmosphere of institutional uncertainty. “Trump operates on a transactional logic: what does not yield a return for America does not deserve to exist,” observes Sébastien Boussois. He adds: “Europe’s true mistake was failing to take his return seriously. Yet the writing was on the wall.”
The transatlantic axis would not merely be weakened by a second Trump term; according to the panelists, it would be fundamentally redefined. General Côté does not hesitate to speak of a “Yalta 2.0,” where global spheres of influence would be de facto reallocated, with Russia and China capitalizing on a Western strategic vacuum. Canada, on the front line of this realignment, is deeply concerned. “Our value chains are integrated, our economic sovereignties at risk. The prospect of a gradual absorption—economic rather than military—is no longer taboo,” warns the general. As for NATO, it could be directly targeted. Trump has repeatedly threatened withdrawal. Budgetary pressure on member states could serve as a pretext for a partial or even total disengagement, justified by a pivot to the Indo-Pacific. A realistic scenario, according to Colonel O’Keefe, a former NATO officer, within the framework of strategic confrontation with China.
The fault line would not only be geopolitical, but also ideological and normative. Anchored in Project 2025, the Trump administration intends to target what it regards as progressive overreach: minority rights, environmental policy, immigration, gender equality, and academic freedom. The offensive is cultural, legal, and institutional. “Trump acts as a catalyst: he reveals the fissures in our democracies rather than causing them,” summarizes Boussois.
The conclusion is unequivocal: the Old Continent underestimated the force of Trumpian disruption, believing a return to “normalcy” was possible. Yet the Trump phenomenon is not an anomaly, but a symptom of a world in transition. While the European Commission only began anticipating this scenario in the summer of 2024, it already appears too late to forge a unified response. For the panelists, Europe’s strategic autonomy is what is now at stake—military, industrial, and normative—if it hopes to survive this tectonic shift.
The conference “How Far Can Donald Trump Go?” did more than outline a political portrait of the former president. It illuminated the underlying coherence of a project for global reassertion, in which America no longer merely dominates, but seeks to dictate the rules. More than ever, the ability of Europeans to react with composure, anticipate rationally, and reinvent themselves as an autonomous power may well be the sole bulwark against what some no longer dare call the unthinkable.
